Why Nobody Should Be a Christian (Even if the bible is true.)

[AnimatedDirt]

Like I said in the other thread: If you have a problem, then please let me know what it is.

Like I mentioned in the other.  I apologize.  I shouldn't be making comments like that.

[j.woodard24]

I think it's an eye-opener because it just doesn't make much sense if you read through it, and gives you plenty of reason to doubt it's truthfulness. But OP was saying that his agrument is within the context of the bible being true, even if it's illogical.

I guess I'm just hung up on that because I can't imagine why any atheist would even put an "even if the bible is true" in their argument, because it's obvious to most of us that it's not.

It's simply a hypothetical. Nothing more. Of course the bible isn't true.
However, it's a very useful hypothetical. A great number of Christians interpret the bible as literally true. My argument is only that, even conceding that their belief in the bible is not irrational (which I only do for the sake of argument), by their own moral standard they should refuse to worship a god who condones genocide. There is no way of interpreting genocide as "not evil". They do spend a lot of time rationalizing away things like genocide (as I once did) on Yahweh's part. However, every excuse for genocide that Christians have ever made (for instance, he had to preserve the bloodline, etc.) is nonsensical, as an all powerful deity may do whatever he damn well pleases, and therefore could have "preserved the bloodline" simply by making Jesus' ancestor's impervious to weapons and disease. He could have done anything he wanted to preserve the bloodline. However, he chose to murder and torture and overall just be insane. There is no such thing as a conditional necessity for an omnipotent being. Any result such a being might want may be reached by a near infinite string of possible choices, or he could simply imagine the result and have it. Therefore, every murder Yahweh commits, every instance of torture, rape, and terror he commands or allows by his followers, is arbitrary, senseless, and, by the Christian standard (or really, any sensible standard) wrong. Therefore, were he to exist, and were the bible an accurate portrayal of his history, he deserves no worship, no praise, no love and no admiration. Which is why even those that believe my conditions should not be Christians. This is not a useless endeavor, as you suggest. For every single argument against religion, against faith, and against the possibility of a god in general, we must presuppose religious tenets (this is generally the case with everything - to defeat a position you must first presuppose it). I have only done so very extensively here, which may be what you mean.

But there seems to be a little confusion as to my parameters. I apologize, I should make it a point to be more clear from the start.
For my argument - the Bible is true. There are no "degrees of truth". As a document, on the whole, it is true. I realize that this is an impossible position to maintain in reality, as the Bible is home to many happy contradictions. However, for the sake of a hypothetical, we may very easily assume that they somehow work themselves out - it is really irrelevant to my argument as a whole. I say that it is 100% true not because this is even a remote possibility, but because this is what a great number of Christians believe - and what people believe is all that pertains to my argument. Any extraneous speculation about a different interpretation, the fact that to assume the truth of the Bible would be - in reality - a ludicrous and irrational viewpoint, or some alternative belief involving different gods, different versions/visions/pictures of god, fall far outside of my parameters and therefore are beside the point. Again, sorry for not simply being more clear to begin with.

If the Bible is somehow true, on the whole, nobody should worship its protagonist - that is my only claim, simply put.

Quote from: j.woodard24 on Yesterday at 05:37:40 PM
My argument is not based on interpretation,

It's not even based on the correct fairytale as you have a few things wrong with your interpretation of the story itself, let alone the interpretation of what it means.

Quote from: j.woodard24
This is an entirely unsubstantiated claim - I mean to say, you're just saying something without even trying to back it up. Furthermore, I was a Christian for eight years, once upon a time considered myself an apologist, and have a perfectly fine understanding of what it's supposed to mean. I just happen to think it's nonsensical, which is what Christians commonly refer to as "lack of knowledge".

Clearly you don't even know what I find wrong with your basis.  If you can't even get how the story goes correctly, how can you be taken seriously?  An apologist?  I find that hard to believe given the fundamental flaws you have on the subject matter itself.

Yes, I clearly don't know what you find wrong with my basis, as you have not taken a single offered opportunity to tell me. I will gladly debate with you in regards to the "proper" version of the Christian story - I was a very devout Christian and know the story well. However, you are giving me nothing to argue with. I can sum up everything you've said with the words "you're wrong, and I'm right." I don't know if you understand what I mean by "unsubstantiated claim", so I'll ask you some specific questions.

1. What do you find wrong with the basis of my argument?
2. How does the "story go correctly?"
3. What are the "fundamental flaws" in my version of the subject matter?
4. What is wrong with my interpretation of "what it means"? (Though I do not remember positing any such conjecture).

I will argue to maintain my position, or I will happily concede if you are able to definitively demonstrate in what way I have been mistaken. However, to simply subject me to a series of "you're-oh-so-sadly-mistaken" statements is to give me absolutely nothing to argue with.


Anyway, apologies if I've sounded strident, everyone. I don't usually have this much fun .

[AnimatedDirt]

Anyway, apologies if I've sounded strident, everyone. I don't usually have this much fun .

Likewise, I've likely sounded much the same.

My point goes back to the topic post.

Even if the the Bible were true, and Jesus somehow died for our sins, we should then recognize that it was a meaningless sacrifice (he went straight to heaven to live an eternity in paradise. He did not "die". He is better off than your average sinner on earth.), that a system in which death for some reason atones for sin is a cruel and sadistic one, and that the god depicted in the bible, generally speaking, is a dictatorial monster who refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes upon his creation. I use the Hitler analogy - if Hitler became omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and commanded that I love him, I wouldn't, and nobody should.

He did not go straight to heaven. (see John 20:17)  He clearly died as he wouldn't have been buried alive or his legs would've been broken also had the Roman soldiers found him still breathing like the two thieves next to him. (see John 19:32-35)

Secondly we have a system in place now where a person's "sin(s)" is paid by death.  Capital Punishment.  Whether you agree or disagree with it, it exists.  It's not cruel or sadistic.

Not only is God NOT dictatorial, (if he were, wouldn't anyone that blasphemes Him be struck dead immediately 100% of the time?) but He did and is subjected to the "same stringent moral standard commanded".  In the story we are assuming for arguments sake, Jesus does not break any of God's commands.  Some humans think he has, but Jesus as the Law Giver, plainly explains the correct interpretation of His Law.

I notice you didn't give Hitler all God's character traits.  You missed Creator, Sustainer of life...Love...give Hitler these character traits and he ceases to be Hitler as we know the Hitler of history.  So in that sense, yes, i agree.  Hitler should not be worshiped given omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresence.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Not only is God NOT dictatorial, (if he were, wouldn't anyone that blasphemes Him be struck dead immediately 100% of the time?)

He has to be actually real in order to do that.

And I think you'd find if he was real, he would do that, and none of us would be in any doubt whatsoever about his existence.

[Tank]

Not only is God NOT dictatorial, (if he were, wouldn't anyone that blasphemes Him be struck dead immediately 100% of the time?)

He has to be actually real in order to do that.

And I think you'd find if he was real, he would do that, and none of us would be in any doubt whatsoever about his existence.

Agreed. Another example positive non-evidence for god. Along with every amputee.

[AnimatedDirt]

Agreed. Another example positive non-evidence for god. Along with every amputee.

While I expect the typical replies to this, I struggle with this same concept about God.  However, just because I cannot reconcile it 100% to my liking, I don't then simply throw it all up in the air and say, "Forget it...it's a lie...I've been bamboozled!"  Much like there is a lot in science I don't understand and yet accept, I can accept that there are many things that I cannot know about God and his reasons for doing or not doing certain things.

I can accept this reasoning for now and expect at some point, likely at a time most of you don't believe will come, I will have a full understanding of it and the rest of my questions.

[Heisenberg]

While I expect the typical replies to this, I struggle with this same concept about God.  However, just because I cannot reconcile it 100% to my liking, I don't then simply throw it all up in the air and say, "Forget it...it's a lie...I've been bamboozled!"  Much like there is a lot in science I don't understand and yet accept, I can accept that there are many things that I cannot know about God and his reasons for doing or not doing certain things.

The difference is that if a scientific concept exists, there is someone on earth who does understand it and can explain it in a way that everyone (at least everyone with the capacity to understand it) will agree it's true. Like how Einstein said there were only three people on earth who truly understood the theory of relativity soon after it was discovered.

Concepts like this can't be explained logically by anybody on earth, because they aren't logical. In science, a theory is discarded if any of the evidence doesn't fit. In religion it is rationalized as being humbling.

[AnimatedDirt]

Concepts like this can't be explained logically by anybody on earth, because they aren't logical. In science, a theory is discarded if any of the evidence doesn't fit. In religion it is rationalized as being humbling.

Of course it's not logical.  I agree with you 100%.  But then we agree that we don't know everything and so for arguments sake, we can't understand even when someone else understands.  By your own words, if someone else understands it, then it might have some weight to it.  Because 99.99~% of humanity could not understand the theory of relativity means that it should have been discarded?  So today, how many rightly understand the theory of relativity?  To me it seems much the same with Atheism vs Theism.  Logically we must first understand God to understand why he doesn't perform miracles on amputees on CNN for all to see.  To understand the latter, we must therefore understand the former.

Christianity at its most fundamental point is not logical.  If God is God as claimed biblically (omni-all, Creator and Sustains life) what logic is there in God changing into a created form and dying for what is created?  It is totally and utterly illogical.  I don't understand it.  The only thing we have to humanly reconcile this is 'love'...and there are lots of things we do "more logical", if you will, that can only be explained by a shrug of the shoulders and a bewildered look that fall in the category of unexplained acts of love.  There is no explanation...

[Heisenberg]

Well if it helps I don't believe in love either.